Panasonic most likely went the second way, which is having software makers implement the same correction algorithms they use in their cameras and embedding the necessary correction parameters inside the photos meta data.
I would not want that, especially not if I wanted to reduce development cost and retail price for new products.
Bridge cs6 panasonic rw2 files update#
Unless he runs after the software companies to update their databases whenever he releases a new lens, images developed from his cameras RAW files will be not optimal. Not an issue for independent open source efforts, we've been running after information from vendors ever since, but not a good situation for the camera vendor. That approach however requires significant effort for maintaining the database plus you will always be playing catch up with the camera manufacturer developing new lenses. The photo software knows what corrections to apply to images taken by a certain camera with a certain lens at a certain focal length. One way to automatically correct those distortions is collecting correction data in a database like PTLens and Lensfun. However, I know from developing my RAW files with ufraw and digikam that the kit lense has a significant barrel distortion at short focal lengths. A number of commercial photo software programs are known to manipulate the RAW image data to remove geometry distortion, chromatic aberration and vignetting silently, which lead to enthusiastic reviews posted on certain digital photography sites about the quality of the Lumix G1 kit lens.
I mentioned in an earlier post that I was intending to go to the bottom of certain rumors about Panasonic including lens defect correction data in the EXIF information of RW2 files.
0 kommentar(er)
